HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 16 81 PC MinutesJune 16, 1981
IR
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday,
June 16, 1981, 7:30 p.m., in the Board Room, County Office Building, Court Square,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Mrs. Norma Diehl, Chairman;
Mr. Kurt Gloeckner, Mr. Allen Kindrick, Mr. David Bowerman, Vice -Chairman, Mr.
Richard Cogan and Mr. James R. Skove. Other officials present were Mr. Frederick
W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney and Ms. Katherine L. Imhoff, Planner. Absent at
the start of the meeting was Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr..
After establishing that a quorum was present Mrs. Diehl called the meeting to
order.
Ednam RPN, Phase 2 (Area A) Site Plan - the Site Review Committee at its meeting
on June 4, 1981, voted to defer this item to its meeting on July 2, 1981.
Mr. Skove moved to defer this site plan until July 2, 1981.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
William Downer Final Plat - located at the end of State Route 816, west of State
Route 20 North and east of the Key West Subdivision; a proposal to divide a 2.001
acre parcel leaving 5.951 acres in residue. Rivanna District. (Tax Map 62, parcel
27•)
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mr. Downer, the applicant, stated that he would respond to any questions the
Commission may have.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before
the Commission.
Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval of this site plan subject to the following
condition:
1. The plat will be signed when the applicant has met the following condition:
a. Written health department approval.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Davis entered the meeting.
N
VL
Windrift, Section 3, Final Plat - located off the west side of Route 664,
north of Route 6; proposed division of 105.86 acres into 30 lots with an
average size of 3.5 acres. White Hall District. (Tax Map 18, portion of
parcel 19).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Dr. Helm, the applicant, stated that he would respond to any questions
the Commission may have.
Ms. Virginia Hahn, an adjacent owner, stated that a petition was presented to
the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Department in June of 1980, concerning
the roads in Windrift. She noted that the roads have not been completed or
maintained by the owner. She asked the Commission to take into consideration
the fact that the roads have not been completed in Windrift Section 1 and
requested that restrictions be placed on this plat that would provide for the
roads in Windrift Section 1 to be taken into the state system before any roads
in section two or three are started.
Ms. Hahn also inquired as to when a traffic count was taken on Route 664.
Ms. Imhoff stated that a traffic.count was taken in 1978.
Ms. Hahn stated that she did not feel that this estimate was reasonable, noting
the additional traffic generated since this count was taken.
Mrs. Diehl inquired if the applicant had any comment at this time.
Dr. Helms noted that one reason for the delay in improvements to the road
in Section 2 was because this road was intended to connect with the road
serving Section 3. He noted that the traffic pattern, third lane and
changes in the entrance design to Section 3 were discussed at earlier meetings.
He noted that an increased road bond has been posted for the road in Section
1. He stated that he will pursue the completion of the road in Windrift,
Section 1 before continuing with development for Sections 2 and 3.
Dr. Helms stated that, with regard to the petition mentioned by Ms. Hahn,
he has not seen a copy of this petition.
Ms. Hahn stated that a copy of the petition was presented to the Planning
Department on June 30, 1980. She also noted that the recommendations of
the Highway Department were submitted in writing to Dr. Helm.
G4
Ken Holland, an adjacent owner, asked when the road in Windrift, Section One,
would be taken into the state system.
Jim Hahn, an adjacent owner, also expressed his concern with the acceptance
of the road in Windrift, Section One into the state secondary system.
Dr. Helms stated that there was no time frame put into the contract as to when
the road in Windrift, Section One would be accepted into the state system. He
reiterated that a bond has been posted for these improvements. He also noted
that the design specifications for the roads in Windrift, Section Three, have
been approved by the County Engineer.
With no further comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter
was before the Commission.
Mr. Skove noted that the County Engineer has recommended that Windrift, Section
III Final Plat be approved only after the road in Section l is accepted into the
state secondary road system and asked why this was not included in the Staff's
recommended conditions of approval.
Ms. Imhoff stated that she did not feel that the Staff has the authority under
the Subdivision Ordinance to require this condition. She pointed out that the
Commission is considering Section 3 at this time and noted that the bond has been
posted for the road in Section 1.
Mrs. Diehl asked when the bond for Windrift, Section 1 would expire.
Ms. Imhoff stated that this bond would expire October 6, 1981. She also
noted that all the road improvements would have to be completed and reviewed
by the Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation Department and the
County Engineer.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the bond amount was adequate to cover the road
improvements. She also noted that the bond would be called on October 6, 1981
if the road improvements were not completed.
Mr. Bowerman asked how long it would take for the State to make the necessary
road improvements.
Mr. Payne stated that these improvements would be done by contractors, noting
that the time involved depends on the amount of improvements to be done.
Mr. Davis asked if the bond for Section l could be called and improvements
made and the remainder of the cost for improvements be billed to the owner.
Mr. Payne stated that the bond could be called and all improvements made would
be covered by this bond. He pointed out that the County would have to furnish
the money for any costs that the bond would not cover and then try to collect
this money from the owner.
Mrs. Diehl stated that if the bond is not extended for these improvements
then the work would be done by the applicant, or the bond called and the work
done by the State.
v27
Ms. Imhoff stated that the work would have to be completed by October 6, 1981
in order to be inspected by the highway department and the County Engineer.
Mr. Skove stated that the Commission should urge the Staff to call the bond
if the road improvements for Windrift, Section 1 are not completed.
Mrs. Diehl asked what the status of Windrift Section 2 was.
Ms. Imhoff stated that Windrift, Section 2 has not yet been constructed.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Payne if the Commission could condition the final approval
of Windrift, Section 3 subject to the completion of the road improvements in
Windrift, Section 1.
Mr. Payne stated that the Commission could not condition the approval of Windrift,
Section 3 subject to conditions in Windrift, Section 1, simply because these are
two separate subdivisions. He did recommend that adequate bond be posted for the
improvements in Windrift, Section 1, and that said bond be called if the improvements
are not made.
Mr. Davis noted that Route 664 is not contigious with Windrift, Section 3 and
asked if the Commission could take any action on the improvements to Route 664.
Mr. Payne stated that the Commission could take action regarding the improvements
to Route 664 because it is directly related to the vehicular access from the
existing public road. He also stated that although Route 664 is physically
part of Windrift, Section 2, Section 3 cannot be completed without the necessary
improvements made to Route 664.
1144)
Mr. Kindrick stated that he did not feel comfortable voting in favor of this
plat, noting the problems with Windrift, Section 1.
Mr. Skove moved for approval of this plat subject to the following conditions:
1. This plat will be signed when the applicant has met the following conditions:
a. Provision of street signs at the intersection of Windrift Drive and
Valleyview Drive and Windrift Drive and Windrift Court;
b. Note on the plat that the access road and dry hydrant shall be provided at
such a time as the reservoir is built;
C. The Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of road
plans for acceptance and maintenance into the State Highway system;
d. County Engineer approval of road plans;
e. Compliance with the Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control Ordinance;
f. Compliance with the Runoff Control Ordinance;
g. The Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of a
commercial entrance including a left turn lane and appropriate
dedication.
9
�N
Mr. Davis seconded the motion.
Mr. Bowerman asked if a memorandum could be sent to the Virginia Department
of Highways & Transportation Department stating that in the event the bond
for Section 1 is called all efforts should be made to make the necessary
improvements.
Mr. Payne stated that he did not feel that the improvements to Section 1 would
be made by the highway department.
Mr. Davis stated that he would like to see the County Engineer's approval of
road plans for acceptance into the state secondary system before voting on this
subdivision. He stated that he favors deferring this plat until this information
is supplied to the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the Commission is concerned with the roads in
Windrift, Section 3.
Mr. Payne stated that the problem is not with the plans but with the execution
of such plans.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the Commission does not have the authority to contingent
the Certificate of Occupancy upon the approval of the road plans.
VOTE: The vote was 3-4 with Mr. Kindrick, Mr. Davis, Mr. Cogan and Mr.
Bowerman voting against the motion.
Mr. Davis moved for deferral of this plat until the following concerns were
addressed:
• The Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of road
plans for acceptance and maintenance into the State Highway system;
• County Engineer approval of road plans.
Mr. Payne stated that unless the applicant is willing to defer this plan and
waive the sixty day provision, he could take this to the courts for approval.
Mr. Davis inquired if this plat had been deferred previously by the applicant.
Ms. Imhoff stated that this plat was deferred March 24 by the Commission, and
the applicant requested deferral from the April and May Commission meetings.
Mr. Cogan stated that he felt the Commission should deny this plat because
of the number of conditions which have not been met.
Mr. Payne stated that if the Commission denies this plat, you must state the
reason for denial and instruct the applicant as to what he can do to bring it
in compliance.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the Commission must base their reason for denial
4%1. on non-compliance with the ordinance.
Mr. Payne stated that if the Commission denies this plat and the applicant
appeals to the courts for approval, the court can approve it if they disagree
with the reasoning of the Commission. He also pointed out however, that the plat
will not be automatically approved if it is considered by the court.
_Z/1y
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion for deferral of this plat until the concerns
noted by Mr. Davis have been taken care of.
Mr. Bowerman stated that in his opinion, deferring this plat would only
prolong the existing problems. He noted that his reasoning for denial was
based on the public health and safety of the residents of the area.
VOTE: The vote for deferral of this plat was 2-5 with Mrs. Diehl, Mr. Bowerman,
Mr. Gloeckner, Mr. Skove, Mr. Cogan voting against the motion.
Mr. Cogan stated that he is in favor of denial of this plat because the applicant
has not met the necessary requirements for the other sections of Windrift.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Payne if he had any suggestions as to how the Commission
could achieve the stated objectives.
Mr. Payne stated that as he understood it the Commission is concerned with the
following:
• getting the road in Section 1 taken into the state secondary system;
• not having the same problems concerning roads occuring in Sections 2 & 3;
He noted that the Commission could not deny this plat because the applicant has
not made all the necessary improvements. He also stated that the Commission
could deny this on the grounds that the roads have not been built and refuse
to let the Staff apply the bond section of the oridinance on the grounds that
the developer has not been responsible in that regard. He pointed out that the
Commission could instruct the Staff to set a reasonable length of time for the
road to be built and to make sure that adequate bond is posted to cover the
necessary road improvements.
Mrs. Diehl stated that she recognizes the Commission's concern with the roads
in Section 1, but feels that the posted bond and the restriction that these
improvements would be completed by the end of October more or less limits the
Commission as to what can be done as far as Section 1 is concerned. She also
stated that denying or deferring this plat would not solve any problem.
Mrs. Gloeckner asked if this could be considered as part of an overall development
even though the plat is labeled "Windrift, Section 3."
Mr. Payne stated that the roads in Section two and three have to be built at
one time because this is required in the ordinance.
Mr. Payne noted that in a sense this was part of the overall development but
to a lesser degree, he noted that the main problem is that the bond for
---Section 1 was set too low.
Mr. Skove ascertained that the bond amount for the improvements to the road
is determined by the County Engineer.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he would like to see the road built in Section 1 and
Section 3. He stated that he is in favor of adding the recommendation of the
County Engineer to the Staff's recommended conditions of approval. (County
Engineer has recommended that Windrift, Section III, Final Plat be approved
only after the road in Section 1 is accepted into the State Secondary
road system).
M
Ms. Imhoff pointed out to the Commission that Section 2 has received final approval
from the Commission and that they could not condition anything on this particular
section.
Mr. Payne stated that a time period of twelve months could be set with
regard to the bond for these improvements.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he would not like the bond extended past October 6. He
pointed out that he is trying to condition the County Engineer's recommendations to
the current expiration of the bond for phase 1, and insure completion of the
roads prior to any construction for phase 3.
Mr. Davis stated that he did not feel that the roads in Section 1 should be
linked with the roads in Section 3. He also stated that he did not feel that
grading permits should be issued before road plans are accepted by the County
Engineer.
Mr. Bowerman proposed adding the following conditions to the Staff's recommended
conditions of approval:
• no grading permit will be issued until County Engineer approval of road
plans for Section III has been obtained;
• Windrift, Section III, Final Plat will not be signed until Spring Lake
Drive (the road in Windrift Section I Subdivsion) is accepted into the
State Secondary road system.
Mrs. Diehl called for a motion.
Mr. Bowerman moved for approval of this plat subject to the following conditions:
1. This plat will be signed when the applicant has met the following conditions:
a. Provision of street signs at the intersection of Windrift Drive and Valley -
view Drive and Windrift Drive and Windrift Court;
b. Note on the plat that the access road and dry hydrant shall be provided
at such a time as the reservoir is built;
c. The Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of road
plans for acceptance and maintenance into the State Highway system;
d. County Engineer approval of road plans;
e. Compliance with the Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control Ordinance;
f. Compliance with the Runoff Control Ordinance;
g. The Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of a
commercial entrance including a left turn lane and appropriate dedication;
h. No grading permit will be issued until County Engineer approval of road plans
for Section III has been obtained;
i. Windrift, Section III, Final Plat will not be signed until Spring Lake Drive
(the road in Windrift, Section I Subdivision) is accepted into the State
Secondary road system.
Mr. Payne stated that condition (i) means that until Section 1 is finished
Section 3 cannot be put to recoru.
��l
VOTE: The vote for approval with the aforementioned conditions carried
by a vote of 5-2, with Mrs. Diehl and Mr. Skove dissenting.
Frank Hereford Revised Site Plan - located off the southwest side of Rio Road
west, edSt of berKmar Drive and west of U.S. 29 North; proposal to amend the
previously submitted plan showing two buildings totalling approximately 9,700
square feet. Charlottesville District. (Tax Map 61, Parcel 120K).
Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself by leaving the room.
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mr. Hereford stated that he would respond to any questions the Commission
may have.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that the matter was before
the Commission.
Mr. Davis asked if any of the conditions of approval for SP-30-53 spoke Co
the size of the building on this parcel. He noted that the Commission was
concerned about the size of the building on this parcel because of the topography
of the area.
Ms. Imhoff noted that condition #5 of SP-80-53 states that:
r
• building shall not exceed 5,000 square feet and shall not contain more than
six establishments.
Miss Imhoff pointed out to the Commission that this condition was for a special
use permit for a contractors office. She noted that he is now proposing uses by
right under highway commercial.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the special use permit could be reactivated.
Ms. Imhoff stated that if the applicant wanted to put a contractors office
on this property he would have to come before the Commission for a special
use permit.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the proposal before the Commission at this time is for
two buildings totaling 10,019 square feet .
Mr. Davis noted that the applicant is proposing access from Berkmar Drive,
pointing out that when the special use permit was considered there was public
opposition to this.
Ms. Imhoff pointed out that the applicant has to use Berkmar Drive because
he cannot obtain a commercial entrance on Rio Roau.
Mr. Skove moved for approval of this site plan subject to the following
conditions:
A building permit can be processed when the applicant has met the following
�32
conditions:
a. No building permit, including special footings permit, shall be
issued until the applicant has obtained a grading permit and posted
bond in an amount adequate to insure compliance during and after
construction and until the applicant has complied with condition 1(b);
b. Compliance with the Urban Stormwater Detention Requirements;
c. Compliance with the Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control Ordinance;
d. County Engineer approval of road plans and specifications for road
running from Berkmar Drive to the eastern -most property boundary line;
e. County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement;
f. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of a commercial
entrance, curb and gutter and right turn lane;
g. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans.
2. A Certificate of Occupancy will be issued when the following condition
has been met:
a. Fire Official approval of fire flow.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Sclater Fruit and Vegetable Stand Site Plan - located on the east side of U.S.
Route 29 North, south of the Woodbrook Shopping Center. Charlottesville
District. (Tax Map 45, Parcel 104A).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comments at this time.
Mr. Sclater stated that they have approximately five hundred (500) square feet
of selling area, one hundred (100) square feet of parking area and there are
provisions for additional parking spaces if needed. He noted that the loading
space is approximately forty-eight (48) feet wide and that produce will be brought
to the site in their trucks.
Mr. Sclater stated that the highway department had suggested signs be installed
stating "entrance with circular drive" and another sign stating "exit".
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Sclaternow may trucks would be used to see the produce
from. r
Mr. Sclater stated that there is an existing building from which they will
sell their produce. He noted that the trucks will be used only for
bridging produce to the site.
Mr. Davis asked if the Commission could condition approval of this plat so
that only the applicants vehicles can be used to bring in produce or for
selling produce from.
Mr. Payne stated that Mr. Davis concern is related to the control of traffic.
Ms. Imhoff noted that there might be a problem with the entrance because
of traffic congestion in this area. She noted that the highway department
has informed the applicant that if such a problem arises they will revoke
the temporary entrance permit.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that there is no decel lane.
fir. Skove asked if there was a zoning clearance for this site plan.
Ms. Imhoff stated that the Staff could not condition approval of this plan
on a buildinq permit because they are not building anything. She stated that
the recommended condition of approval is based on review of this site plan
by the Zoning Administrator. She also noted that the Commission might want
to make sure that the use of the property complies with the zoning (C-1 Commercial).
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that only Mr. Smithers and his partner would be selling
produce at this location.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that this proposal was in no way connected to the
proposed farmers market at Greene Gardens.
Mr. Skove ascertained that the only control for the use as a temporary facility
is that the highway departments permit for a temporary entrance expires on
December 31, 1981.
Mr. Gloeckner noted his concern with the congestion on 29N and the fact that
there is no decel lane at this location.
Mr. Skove asked Mr. Payne if the Commission could condition approval of this
site plan so that the approval will expire before December 31, 1981.
Mr. Payne stated that this could be done as follows:
• to the extent that the reason for this condition is related to the site plan
itself;
* he noted that the Commission may feel that since this is for a temporary use
requiring a decel lane is not appropriate but would require a decel lane
if this was for a permanent use, thus any deadline to serve these objectives
would be appropriate.
Mr. Skove ascertained that the applicant was agreeable to having the expiration
date of this site plan set for October 31, 1981.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he felt the traffic generation to this site would
be greater than anticipated.
firs. Diehl ascertained that the temporary entrance permit issued by the highway
department is not conditioned on any traffice volume.
Mr. Skove moved for approval of this site plan with the following conditions:
1. Zoning Clearance will be issued when the applicant has met the following
conditions:
a. Note on the site plan the parking spaces;
b. Provide on the site plan a schedule of parking required and provided
(Allow 1 parking space for every 100 square feet of sales or display
area);
c. Note on the site plan a loading/unloading space;
d. County Engineer approval of parking area specification;
e. Provide proof of agreement to use bathroom facilities;
f. Zoning Clearance will be valid until October 31, 1981.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion.
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Bowerman stated that in his opinion, a right decel lane should be required,
noting the amount of traffic on 29N. He further stated that he could not support
this site plan request.
VOTE: The motion carried 61- with Mr. Bowerman dissenting.
Commonwealth Properties Office Building Site Plan - located at the southeast
corner of the intersection of Greenbrier Drive Route 866) and Commonwealth
Drive (Route 852); proposal to locate a 9,990 square foot office building on
a 40,001 square foot parcel. Charlottesville District. (Tax Map 61W, parcel 9).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before the Commission as there was no
comment from the applicant or the public.
Mrs. Diehl noted that the highway department recommended that the sidewalk stub
connecting the internal sidewalk and the existing sidewalk adjacent to Common-
wealth Drive be deleted to discourage the drop off of patrons to this office
building. She asked if this would be enforced.
Ms. Imhoff stated that the Staff was of the opinion that this was not necessary
and noted that it would be up to the Commission to decide if this was necessary.
Mrs. Diehl asked why handicapped parking was not required for this site plan.
Mr. Cortez stated that handicapped parking is required when the building is
10,000 square feet or more, noting that this proposal is for a 9,990 square
foot office building.
Mr. Bowerman asked if any consideration had been given to the cemetary on this
property.
Ms. Imhoff stated that by State law no building can be done on cemetaries, noting
that the cemetary is shown on the plat, but no grading or building will be done
in this area.
Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval of this site plan subject to the following:
1. A building permit can be processed when the applicant has met the following
conditions:
y��
a. Note the existing zoning;
b. Compliance with the Urban Stormwater Detention requirements;
c. Compliance with the Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control Ordinance,
d. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of commercial
entrances;
e. Fire Official approval of hydrant and dumpster locations;
f. Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans;
g. County Engineer approval of drainage facilities;
2. A Certificate of Occupancy will be issued when the following condition has
been met:
a. Fire Official approval of fire flow.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Kenneth L. Gibson Final Plat - located off the east side of Route 689, south
of Route 250 West; proposal to divide a 4.52 acre parcel into two lots of 2.26
acres each. Samuel Miller District. (Tax Map 71, Parcel 37E).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl inquired if the applicant had any comments at this time.
Mr. Gibson noted that this road had been graded by the highway department
within the last two (2) years.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was
before the Commission.
Mr. Skove asked if the commercial entrance would require extensive grading.
Ms. ;mhoff replied that extensive grading would be necessary, noting that this
would be prohibitive.
Mr. Davis stated that in his opinion condition l.b. of the Staff's recommended
conditions of approval is not necessary because the road already exists and
County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement and County Engineer
approval of rod specifications is adequate. (CONDITION l.b. - Virginia
Department of Highways & Transportation approval of private street commercial
entrance.)
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that this road serves only this parcel and no adjoining
properties.
Mr. Davis moved for approval of this plat subject to the following:
1. This plat will be signed when the applicant has met the following condition:
a. Compliance with the private road provisions including:
1) County Engineer approval of road specifications;
2) County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion.
DISCUSSION:
Mrs. Diehl noted that this was an open stretch or road and inquired
what the speed was in this area.
Ms. Imhoff stated that she thought the speed was 45 mph. noting that there
might be a problem obtaining sight distance.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the highway department could erect a sign to
read "hidden entrance."
Ms. Imhoff replied that a letter from the Commission to the highway
department noting this concern might be appropriate.
Mrs. Diehl called for a vote for the motion on the floor.
The vote was unanimous for approval.
ADDITIONAL MOTION:
Mr. Bowerman recommended that the Commission send a letter to the highway
department expressing thier concern about this particular site and ask that
they review the entrance in terms or whether or not it is necessary to erect
a sign stating "hidden entrance" or a similar sign to warn motorists of this
entrance. He then made a motion to this effect.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
James H. Nay Final Plat - located off the east side of Route 632 near the
intersection with Route 774 (access in Nelson County); proposal to divide
a 26.06 acre parcel leaving 54.44 acres in residue. Scottsville District.
(Tax Map 117, Parcel 17).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment at this time.
Roger Ray, representing the applicant, stated that the local highway department
had indicated that they could not require up -grading on this entrance. He
asked why Nelson County Residency of the Virginia Department of Highway &
Transportation approval was necessary for the adequacy of this entrance on
Rt. 632.
Ms. Imhoff stated that the applicant would have to obtain this approval from
Nelson County if the Planning Commission requires such approval. She noted
that the local highway department does review entrances in Nelson and Louisa
Counties but these are generally recommendations not requirements.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before
the Commission.
1* r" Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the entrance to this property is in Nelson County.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that as long as this had been reviewd by the local
highway department this should be adequate.
, 3V
Ms. Imhoff stated that the highway department has indicated that there is
a problem with sight distance, noting that the highway department cannot
require a private street commercial entrance because this is an existing
entrance.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that it is normal procedure for the Commission to
require another County to review an entrance when this is in their jurisdiction.
Mr. Cogan stated that in his opinion this did not need to be reviewed by
another County since the applicant is not proposing to add additional dwellings.
Mr. Davis asked if the highway department could give approval to the entrance.
Mr. Payne stated that if the Commission requires the highway department to
act on this they will deny it because the entrance is in Nelson County.
Mr. Davis moved for approval of this plat subject to the following conditions:
1. This plat will be signed when the applicant has met the following conditions:
a. Add note: "Only one dwelling unit per parcel."
b. Owners' notarized signature;
c. Assignment of development rights;
d. Note the width of the right-of-way;
e. Compliance with the private road provisions will be required and
includes:
1) County Engineer approval of road specifications;
2) County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mill Run Final Plat - located on the north side of Route 743, east of the
intersection with Route 663 in Earlysville; proposal to divide 15.966 acres into
11 lots with an average size of 1.45 acres. Rivanna District. (Tax Map 31,
Parcels 40, 41C and 41D).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comments at this time.
Mike Boggs, representing the applicant, stated that the road plans have been
submitted and a grading permit has been applied for. He noted that the highway
department has reviewed the proposed entrance and has determined that it is
adequate. As far as the dry hydrant is concerned,there is not enough water on
the site. He pointed out that there are two (2) streams on the property but
these will not supply enough water for a dry hydrant.
Mr. Boggs stated that he will respond to any concerns the Commission may
have.
Mrs. Diehl asked if there was any public comment concerning this final plat.
19
William Snead, an adjacent owner, stated that he does not favor
this subdivision. He noted that this is not an urban area and the
site does not have proper access or water facilities. He noted that
considering the rural aspect of Albemarle County, with the total
acreage involved in this property, traffic problems in the future will
be severe.
Mr. Snead noted that this proposal is for one unit per one and one-half
acres, he pointed out that he did not think this was in keeping with
the comprehensive plan for Albemarle County.
Mr. Snead stated that in his opinion the Commission should consider
the following:
• the proposal should be for four acres per unit per home not
one and one-half acres;
• review the water supply for this area.
Mrs. Diehl stated that Earlysville is designated a Village area in
the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Roy Roudabush inquired if one has over three acres could he
sell 1.45 acres in order to build another residency?
Mrs. Diehl noted that the Earlysville area is 12 miles from the village
center as designated in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mrs. Diehl noted that the density for this final plat is slightly in-
creased because the applicant received bonuses for having all the
lots enter on an interior road.
Mr. Roy Roudabush stated that he feels the Commission should
take into consideration the traffic and condition of Rt. 743.
Mr. Boggs reiterated that the highway department has stated that
there is adequate sight distance.
Ira Cortez, Fire Official, stated that there is no public water in
the Earlysville area. He noted that in a rural area without adequate
separation between buildings the risk of fires spreading is high.
Mr. Cortez stated that if the distances,between the houses was adequate
he would be content even without a dry hydrant. He noted that the
new zoning ordinance gives the Fire Official the responsibility for
determining the safe way to build on certain pieces of land and stated
that this determination was needed in this particular case. He noted
that if plans for public water or a dry hydrant are not possible, then
the buildings should be further apart.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that Mr. Cortez is recommending that the
buildings be 100' apart.
With no further comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this
matter was before the Commission.
Mr. Skove asked what the normal requirement for separation between
buildings.
Mr. Cortez stated that any development without public facilities
the separation between buildings should be 100'.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that large subdivisions approved in this area
had adequate separation between buildings or a dry hydrant was provided.
Mrs. Diehl noted that the building site for each lot was not
delineated on the map.
Mr. Boggs stated that certification of a 30,000 square foot building
site for each lot will be provided. He noted that only lots 10 and 11
have slopes of 25% or greater.
Mr. Davis asked if the Commission could condition approval of this
plat subject to Fire Official approval of location of buildings.
Mr. Payne stated that this condition would have to be shown on the
plat.
Mr. Bowerman stated that if Fire Official approval of the building
sites is required, the first lots developed would be acceptable but
subsequent lots adjacent to the initial building sites would have to
keep the separation requirement.
Mr. Payne pointed out to the Commission that they are not necessarily
speakinc to fifty (50) foot side yards, but to the nearest point.
Mrs. Diehl stated that she felt it is a safety problem to create a
subdivision that cannot be addressed in terms of fire safety.
Mr. Davis moved for approval of this plat subject to the following:
1. The plat will be signed when the applicant has met the following
conditions:
a. Provide a street sign;
b. Compliance with the private road provisions including County
Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement;
C. Compliance with the Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control Ordinance;
d. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of
a private street commercial entrance;
e. Note on the plat: "Fire Official approval of building locations
is required."
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion.
DISCUSSION:
C
Iwo
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that with the 100' building separations
recommended, there is adequate water to fight a one dwelling fire.
rr He noted the concern of the Fire Official that the fire would spread
to other dwellings. He also noted that the Fire Official felt
that there is adequate protection with this recommended separation
and dry hydrants on adjacent properties.
VOTE: The vote was unanimous for approval on the above noted
motion made by Mr. Davis.
Crutchfield Corporation Site Plan - located on the east side of Route
606, north of the intersection with Route 649; proposal to locate a
9,000 square foot warehouse addition to the existing building. Rivanna
District. (Tax Map 32, Parcel 17B).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl stated that the matter was before the Commission, as there
was no comment from the applicant or the public.
Mrs. Diehl asked when the warehouse additon would be built.
Mr. Crutchfield stated that they expect this to be built and occupied
by the first of the year.
Mrs. Diehl asked how condition #2 of the recommended conditions of
approval could be met. (CONDITION #2: Fire Official approval of
fire flow when the hydrant system is installed and, if not installed
by July of 1982, Fire Official approval of a dry hydrant system).
Ms. Imhoff stated that this would be enforced by the Fire Official.
Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval of this site plan subject to the
following:
1. A building permit can be processed when the applicant has met
the following conditions:
a. Compliance with the Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control
Ordinance;
b. Fire Official approval of the interior fire protection system;
2. A Certificate of Occupancy will be issued when the following
condition has been met:
a. Fire Official approval of fire flow when the hydrant system
is installed and, if not installed by July of 1982, Fire Official
approval of a dry hydrant system.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Hackingwood Corporation Final Plat - located off the west side of
Route 799, southwest of the intersection with Route 600; proposal
to divide a 29.363 acre parcel with access in Louisa County;
leaving 47.1 acres in residue. Rivanna District. (Tax Map 81, Parcel
15A).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Art Larson, attorney for Hackingwood Corporation, stated that they object
to any reference to an easement shown on the plat because after research
they have determined that no such right-of-way exists. He explained
that William Morris subdivided his property and conveyed right-of-ways
to various parcels over his land. He noted that it is his clients
position that Mr. Morris could not grant right-of-ways over land which
he did not own. He also noted that there is nothing in the i{ackingwoo'd
Corporations chain of title concerning such a right-of-way.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that the Commission could not resolve the
problem with the easement until this was removed from the plat by
the surveyor.
Mr. Larson stated that he has a plat which does not show the easement.
He noted that originally this easement was not on the plat but was
shown as a 15' right-of-way at the suggestion of the Planning Department.
He also stated that Mr. Bell has confirmed verbally that there is no
road in existence.
Mrs. Diehl asked if there was any public comment concerning this
final plat.
Mr. Davis, an adjacent owner, stated that a 15' right-of-way was
deeded to his grandfather by Mr. Morris. He pointed out on the map
the location of his property and stated that the Hackingwood Corp.
has moved 15' over on the Morris property leaving him without a
right-of-way.
A representative from the Hackingwood Corp. stated that Mr. Davis
has access to his property from Rt. 799.
Mrs. Diehl stated that the Commision does not feel that they can
address the legal matter concerning the easement, but that they
could address the site plan.
Mr. Payne stated that the Commission could require the applicant
to show the easement. He stated that looking at the plats it appears
that the right-of-way is on the Hackingwood side of the line or
there is a pipe stem of some type. He also noted that it is possible
that Mr. Morris attempted to grant right-of-way which he did not own
or that there is a 15' strip owned by the Morris heirs.
Mrs. Diehl stated that condition #l.b. (Note on the plat the
location and deed book reference for the 15' right-of-way) should
be in the conditions of approval for this plat so that this matter
could be settled.
�Hz
Mrs. Davis stated that in researching the deeds at the County Court-
house she found evidence that William Morris deeded 15' from his
own property giving access to Ridge Road.
Mr. Larson stated that the deeds do show that there is a right-of-way
but he questioned the location of this right-of-way.
Mrs. Diehl stated that the matter was before the Commission, as there
is no further public comment.
Mr. Payne stated that the easement has to be shown by the surveyor.
Mrs. Diehl questioned the need for verification of adequacy of the
existing entrance.
Ms. Imhoff stated that there is no problem obtaining sight distance.
Mr. Skove moved for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. The plat will be signed when the applicant has met the following
conditions:
a. Owner's notarized signature;
b. Note on the plat the location and deed book reference for
the 15' right-of-way;
C. Written health department approval;
d. Verification of adequacy of the existing entrance to Rt. 799
by,the Louisa Residency of the Virginia Department of Highways
& Transportation;
e. Compliance with the private road provisions including:
a. County Engineer approval of road plans;
b. County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS:
Mr. Gloeckner suggested that the Commission instruct the Staff to
send a memorandum to the highway department requesting that no temporary
permits for business for commercial use be issued especially in
the vicinity of Rt. 29N.
Ms. Imhoff noted that the temporary entrance approval was given
prior to the site review meeting.
CONSENSUS: The Commission agreed to send the memorandum to the
highway department stating their request that no
temporary entrance permits be issued until Planning
Commission review of the plat in question.
The meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
�y.3
Robkrt W. Tucker, Jr., Skcre&ary